2012-09-25
2012-10-03
x virginia

STATION
FOXNEWS 18
CNN 9
CNNW 9
MSNBC 9
MSNBCW 9
CSPAN 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 2
WRC 2
CNBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
WMAR (ABC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 85

Set Clip Length:


that susan rice, america's ambassador to the u.n., provide more answers what happened in benghazi. new hampshire senator, kelly ayotte one of those four senators who sent a scathing letter to ambassador susan rice, she will be here to tell us first-hand what that is all about. bill: meantime the violence in syria getting worse by the day. a pair of massive explosions rocking the capital city of damascus. just watch here. that looks like surveillance video there. state television saying that rebel fighters attacked a militariry compound. one of a series of increasingly bold attacks in their efforts to out of president assad. the car bombs shown here shattering windows. they could be heard from miles around. a three-hour gunfight followed. four syrian guards and an iranian tv reporter reportedly killed as a result of that. martha: all right. let's take it back here at home for a minute and talk a little bit about the economy because we've got a lot of new numbers that have come in that are giving us a better read on the health of the u.s. economy. u.s. weekly jobless claims fell by 26,00

. then the explanations began to shift a little bit. susan rice the u.n. ambassador said it started as a demonstration about that video, and then involved other elements, who joined spontaneously. it's been shifting ever since. the president initially called it an act of terror. he has not done so since then but his spokesman has said since then that it is obviously self-evidently an act of terror, and now this statement from the spokesman for the director of national intelligence, who says in part, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to, al qaeda. >> can i ask you, susan rice, she's under fire from peter king. of course he's a republican congressman. he's been calling for her resignation, saying she hasn't been forthcoming with the truth. so what does the white house say about that? >> they did put out a spokesman in defense of ambassador -- statement in defense of ambassador susan rice yesterday. it stems from a couple of sundays ago. she was on some of the sunday shows, including "meet the press" where she gave that explanation that this pr

in banghazi. the question is why did they send susan rice out? why i was it necessary for her to go out on five shows and say it was spontaneous. why not saying we have an ongoing investigation. i'm not going to say more. we're going to learn more. >> secretary clinton believes that ambassador rice has done a superb job. let's just start that. we completely reject calls here in this building. >> at a time when most americans would want to rally around our country at the death of four americans serving our country, instead we've had this bizarre response, which only leads to me believe there was, number one, there was gross negligence involved, or the president doesn't want us to realize libya may be a failed state in the fbi agents can't even make into banghazi. >> i watched the presentation. i thought it was amazing that someone in her position would go on with that degree of certainty, that fast, and that authoritatively and be that wrong. >> did you know the chairman of the homeland security committee has asked for susan rice to resign? does the president have 100% confidence in susa

? was it's a lie? >> i think that susan rice needs to step down. one of two things occurred. either she saw the intelligence and decided she was going to nuance or tweak and say what she said, calling it's a response to the video, or she was told by those above her to go out and say this was a response to the video. >> eithe either ambassador rices deliberately misleading the american people or showed such a lack of knowledge or sophistication she shouldn't told that position anymore. >> today we see things differently. i mean, we see the thing unravel in banghazi. the question is why did they send susan rice out? why i was it necessary for her to go out on five shows and say it was spontaneous. why not saying we have an ongoing investigation. i'm not going to say more. we're going to learn more. >> secretary clinton believes that ambassador rice has done a superb job. let's just start that. we completely reject calls here in this building. >> at a time when most americans would want to rally around our country at the death of four americans serving our country, instead we've had this bizar

that happened. then compare that to susan rice's tour on the five network shows that sunday which was five days later. have you thought about that? >> i know it's fashionable to call for susan rice's resignation. i think that's missing the target. the target is the president. the president sets the ideological tone and celts the message and for home it was politically and philosophically convenient to say it was caused by a movie trailer and it was spontaneous. to admit otherwise is to admit al qaeda is not on the run. it can carely out terrorist attacks. bill: on the time line it will tell you whether there was a considered effort to deflect or specificallien extra detective. >> the time line is less important than the bigger picture. the bigger picture is a collapsing policy in the region. that's not important simply because of november. it's important for the next four years. because this world view that's so divorced from reality events you from having an effective policy. if you can't recognize reality you can't deal with it. i almost prefer the coverup explanation would be true. because t

is the united nations susan rice. almost two weeks ago she claimed the assault was a spontaneous protest that spun out of control. white house officials admitting it was a coordinated terrorist attack. speaking earlier on fox news, peter king says rice should step down over this. >> the person that was out there. the person that was going to get all the glory, all the morning shows was ambassador rice. to send a clear message to the world and to american people this will not be tolerated, she should resign but also should investigate and find out how high up this went. >> gregg: welcome to a brand-new hour. i'm gregg jarrett. >> heather: i'm heather childers. a new debate rages in washington. what did white house officials know and when did they know it. demand for answers into the shifting accounts coming not just from republicans but lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. attack in benghazi that left four americans dead, including chris stevens, ambassador to libya. molly henneberg is live in washington. >> molly: the white house and state department are defending ambassador susan ric

called for the resignation of u.n. ambassador susan rice who proposed the attack was the result of the youtube video. king called rice's exnags a misstatement of facts i believe she should resign and while john mccain disagreed about the need for rice to be sfirds he made it clear that the attack had been bungled by the white house. >> that doesn't pass the smell test. willful ignorance or abysmal intelligence. >> mitt romney criticized the foreign policy in "the wall street journal" editorial pages he wrote -- romney plans to deliver a major foreign policy address some time after this week's debate. joining us now from washington, is p.j. crowley, former assistant secretary of state for public affairs. it is always great to see you. you always help us make sense of these senseless moments. i guess your -- where do you grade the administration on -- in terms of handling the affairs in benghazi? we know it's a fluid situation. there's been a lot of critique on both sides of the aisle i would say about how precise the white house has been or hasn't been given the information that

. >> greta: so unusual that a u.n. ambassador, susan rice, got sent out. like they sent her out to dry, send her out to the five sunday shows to look the most foolish. >> and the president goes to the u.n. and says video, video, video. he hung himself out to dry. this is after his press secretary that it is obvious that it was an act of terrorism. there's no rationality to this white house. >> greta: governor, thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> greta: now to a very disturbing question. did the obama administration just flat out lie? the obama administration did know from day one that the attack in our consulate in banghazi was terrorism. why didn't they tell us? is there some reasonable explanation? let's ask state department official hi liz cheney. why didn't we get the truth from the get-go? >> one you heard the president's speech in virginia, he said al-qaeda is on a path to defeat and osama bin laden is dead. that's their success, that somehow the killing of bin laden has ended the war. it's an inconvenient fact for them politically if in fact al-qaeda is resurgent across north africa, in

about what the u.s. knew. eli, you have been investigating whether susan rice, the u.n. ambassador, was, in addition to receiving the talking points, obviously now everyone knows what those included, right, including that it was not a preplanned attack, also had perhaps been briefed on classified information, which could have included different pieces of information, obviously. what have you found? >> well, the main thing to understand is that the key piece of intelligence that informed the unclassified assessment that this was a spontaneous reaction to a video protest was an intercept between a member of ansar al sharia, and alk al qae in north africa. so that fact that it comes from that conversation, there are lots of reasons as to why the intelligence community would not want that information to be out there. one would compromise sources. the other is this there is a risk if you name groups like that, you could be creating a situation where you're getting false confirmation. someone may have seen a report to that effect, and you think it's an independent verification when it's just

-called talking points you've heard so much about. the talking points that ambassador susan rice used on sunday talk shows that emphasized an initial assessment that the attack began as a spontaneous protest, that it didn't appear to be planned. the white house's national security council spokesman tommy vetoer tells cnn the white house was not involved in writing that memo. elise, i know you have been working fast and furious on this. what was the memo, and what did it say? >> erin, what senior administration officials are telling us, they are speaking from unclassified talking parts provided by the intelligence community based on preliminary intelligence assessments, which were used in the briefing members of congress and speaking about it publicly. now, we know, as you said, there was other information reporting from our sources saying there were indications of possible terror involvement. but national security council spokesman tommy see tore says they didn't have that information and in a statement he says this was an intelligence community assessment based on the analysis of all of the av

are defending ambassador susan rice. a spokesman for barack obama says she has done extraordinary work for the american people. also democratic senator john kerry called rice, quote a remarkable public servant and state department put out a statement defending rice's comments to those sunday shows. the statement said, quote, at every turn, ambassador rice said she was providing the best information and best assessment that the administration had at the time. based on what was provided to ambassador rice and other senator senior intelligence committee but they knew one day of the assault that it was a coordinated terror attack likely tied to al-qaeda. congressman king wants to know why ambassador rice went on tv five days after the attack and said otherwise. >> the entire administration, miss informed the world and she was our representative to the world explaining what happened. virtually everything she said was wrong and the administration is trying to cover it by saying she was given the best information available at the time. >> molly: a spokesperson for james clapper says assessmen

an sunday show, susan rice come in to focus. >> not only do you have leon panetta at c.i.a. saying it took a while to get that information. >> bret: at defense. >> at defense. and you have general petraeus at c.i.a. saying you know what? when he testified it was not terrorism at that point. i think the intelligence is at fault if you want to say that. difficult environment. the intelligence, nobody intentionally deceiving anybody. >> bret: charles? >> question is not the wisdom of the libya operation. question is the honesty of the obama administration. this was deception on the part of the administration and sending susan rice to say this is spontaneous demonstration when you reported it was known inside the administration within a day it was not. it was a terror attack. why did they deceive? of course. the attack took place five days after the democrats had spent a week in charlotte. out thing, spiking the football on usama and since it's the only foreign policy achievement of four years they repeat it over and over again. the triumph over al-qaeda. in a week, al-qaeda sacks a u.s. embas

. the stories about what exactly happened that day. susan rice on this program said it was a spontaneous response to an anti-muslim film. since then we have learned that it was on organized attack and that some intelligence and pentagon officials suspected that early on and that's prompted this criticism from governor romney. >> we've seen a confused, slow, and inscent response to the terrorist attack in libya. a refusal to be frank with the american people about what happened. >> the chairman of the homeland security committee peter king has gone even further calling on susan rice to resigned. >> absolutely not. george, there's been an ongoing investigation. so, there's been information provided real-time. you'll know more about an event a week after it happens. >> officials in 24 hours that suspected it was a terrorist attack. >> what ambassador rice and others were doing were going on what our intelligence we were receiving. let's talk about governor romney for a moment, you know, we're happy to have a debate about our approach to terrorism and foreign policy. the president promised t

nations ambassador susan rice to resign. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge live in washington with more on that. >> reporter: thank you, gregg and good morning. a congressional source confirming to fox news that uav assets were quote, repositioned to establish better situational awareness on the ground and monitor at least two suspects training sites in eastern libya known to be used by foreign fighters. we're learning more details about the attack itself. the compound was reportedly assaulted on three sides with use of heavy weapons as fox was first to report, there were two waves to the attack strongly suspected inside information specifically use of mortars which hit consulate building and annex a mile away. here is republican senator bob corker this morning. they are demanding specific communications between ambassador stevens and the state department. >> at a time most americans would want to rally around our country at the death of four americans serving our country instead we've had this bizarre response which only leads me to believe, number one, there wa

it was preplanned within 24 hours after the death of the ambassador. yet susan rice, jay cancer oh, several obama officials going out saying it was a response to the movie. is this a cover-up? >> they lie. there is no question about it. by the way, if the republicans did that, there would be hell to pay. everybody would call for resignations and it would be terrible. but they lie. everybody knew they were lying. they knew almost immediately because it was obviously an attack. this had nothing to do with that stupid nieces made and it was stupid and it was ridiculous. but they lie. they've been lying for years now. they get away with it and the press allows them to get away with it. >> steve: so you're very clear, there are people who are lying about it in the white house. but -- >> they knew they were lying. i mean, they were saying it with a very straight face and they knew they were lying and certainly after the first 24 hours, it became the big lie and they kept doing it and the press allowed them to get away where w it. >> gretchen: why were they lying? >> in order to save face. in order to s

of the house homeland security committee. it all started when susan rice made remarks five days after those attacks. listen here. >> there was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. it had nothing to do with the united states government and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehencible. offensive to many, many people around the world. that sparked violence in various parts of the world including against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. >> the obama administration eventually labeled the attack on that consulate in libya terrorism. the chairman of the house homeland security committee peter king thinks there should be consequences to rice's original comments that you heard right there. here's what he said to wolf in "the situation room" friday. >> to rule out terrorism, to say it was not terrorism at that time was, to me, a terrible mistake to make whether it was done intentionally or unintentionally and i believe she should retisign, yes. >> let's bring back obama campaign supporter general wesley clark and rich williamson, former diplomatic, a

, do you agree it's the fog of war that led people leak jay carney and susan rice to say it's as the result of a ridiculous movie trailer? >> if this wasn't for political reasons it's out of sheer incompetence. and to cover up solyndra and fast and furious, misinformation for political purposes. so the question we have to ask is did they do this out of incompetence or are they liars? >> that's a good question, penny, even just yesterday, james clapper, the director of office of national intelligence came out and said, look, this was sort of our fault. we didn't have all the information right way way. however, witnesses on the ground, they seemed to know it was a terrorist attack and as we now know the white house internally labeled it as a terror attack and they knew there were the al-qaeda off shoots, may have been preparing stuff for september 11th. is this a failure of intelligence? >> again, let us go back. there's a lot of different informati information, and in a responsible manner and go out-- the president, i'll remind everybody, the president the day after in his st

. moments ago, four top republican senators sent a letter to u.n. ambassador susan rice seeking clarification on her very public statements that the september 11th terrorist attack in benghazi, libya, this year was the result of a, quote: spontaneous reaction. the letter writes in part, quote: in the aftermath of the september 11th terrorist attack in the benghazi that resulted in the death of four americans including ambassador chris stevens, you made several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation. we look toward -- forward to a timely response. those statements involved ambassador rice appearing on several national news broadcasts in which she blamed a spontaneous protest for the murders. but as more and more information came to light, including this video of attackers at the u.s. compound with rocket-protelled grenades and clearly no protests around them, it has become clear that was not the case and the information was not accurate. senator barrasso, a republican from wyoming, yesterday said on fox news business -- fox business news

of the administration in sending susan rice to say this is a spontaneous demonstration when as you reported it was known inside the administration within a day that is was not. it was a terror attack. why did they deceive? it's obvious. the attack took place five days after the democrats spent a week in charlotte touting, spiking the football on oh sa -- spikinn osama. within a week of al qaeda sacks a u.s. embassy, kill an ambassador and the administration did not want to admit. they not they stringt out the media wouldn't care. megyn: joining me now, andy card, former white house chief of staff under former president george w. bush. your thoughts on charles's theory. >> i believe the white house must have had some intelligence work prior to 9/11 to anticipate where attacks could be on 9/11. it would have been logical for our intelligence community to want to brief the president about what intelligence work we were discovering and what had to be done to harden potential targets around the world. i also honestly believe the fault expectation at the white house should have been this was a terrorist attac

election and sending out u.n. ambassador susan rice to morning shows days after the attacks saying we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. by the way, you have to wonder if obama wins re-election is rice's chances of being secretary of state are collateral damage from all of this simply because senate republicans may want someone to go after if they end up losing the big enchilada. >>> critics of the voter i.d. law will take the stand today to convince the judge that the provision is unworkable. they'll hear from witnesses who say the state hasn't adequately prepared the public for what's coming. pete williams is nbc's justice correspondent. you had one court send it back to another court in pennsylvania. making this argument, look, to the state, you better prove you can make this law work. we're not saying it's unconstitution a. unconstitutional. we don't know if it will work. >> the law originally passed said you could use a driver's license or like many states, a nondriver state i.d. >> fishing license, something like t

it a terrorist, al-qaeda terror attack and everyone out there, susan rice, hillary clinton, jay carney saying it was the movie. >> bob: with all due respect to our reporting on this, having dealt with the intelligence community for many years they did not confirm this was a terror attack on the 12th. these were intelligence sources who said they believed as i believed and everybody else believed it probably was a terrorist attack. the al-qaeda connection, everybody in eastern libya -- >> eric: bob, bob -- >> bob: let me finish. >> eric: please finish. what you are saying is incorrect. >> bob: it's not incorrect. i bet you whatever you want to bet, there is nothing, any intelligence report. i listened to the intelligence guys sit back and they guess what happened. how would they know? f.b.i. is investigating this. they weren't on the ground. if they knew so much about it, how come cnn got ahold of a diary by the ambassador? it's the most ridiculous concept i've heard. >> eric: so according to our reporter, u.s. officials confirm they had several intelligence assets on the ground, c.i.a. on the

questions for that as well. the stories about what exactly happened that day. you and ambassador susan rice, on this program, after the attack, said it was a spontaneous response to an anti-muslim film. since then, we have learned that it was on organized attack and that some intelligence and pentagon officials suspected that early on and that's prompted this criticism from governor romney. >> we've seen a confused, slow, and inconsisten t response to the terrorist attack in libya. a refusal to be frank with the american people about what happened. and a complete failure to explain the growing terrorist threat we face in the region. >> the chairman of the homeland security committee peter king has gone even further calling on u.s. ambassador to resign, your response. >> absolutely not. susan rice has done a terrific job. george, there's been an ongoing investigation. an event to great interest to the news media, understandably. so, there's been information provided real-time. you'll know more about an event a week after it happens. >> there were officials in 24 hours after it happened that

or not this was a deliberate act, terrorist attack. this is what susan rice said at the time. >> let me tell you the best information we have at present. first of all, there's an fbi investigation that's ongoing. and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpyred. but putting together the best information we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in benghazi in fact was initially a spontaneous reaction to what transpired hours before in cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in cairo which were prompted of course by the video. >> there was a caveat there. she said the fbi was still investigating. but the thought was it was a spontaneous reaction. a couple of days before that, the libyan president said, no, in fact, al qaeda was behind this attack. and then days later, after ambassador rice is on this program and other programs, the president's spokesman jay carney says this. it is, i think, self-evident that what happened in benghazi was a terrorist attack. well, if it was self-evident, why didn't the presid

rice to resign, does the president have confidence in susan rice? >> absolutely. >> what about the broader point here, security is so bad in benghazi, that the fbi can't even go in and investigate. what about the fact that there are talk of military options to find ambassador steven's killers? what is america doing to work its will to change the trajectory in libya? >> well obviously i'm not going to speak for the fbi. but i think the key thing here, we live in a dangerous world with threats out there. and we're going to make sure that the appropriate steps are taken to enhance security, make sure our personnel and ambassadors are secure. >> is there a military option for the united states to lead the way in libya, to track down his killers? >> i'm not going to speak to that but the president was very clear the day after this event, this tragedy, that we are going to make sure that these killers are brought to justice. >> was it inappropriate for him to go to a fundraiser the day after this attack, in retrospect knowing it was a terrorist attack? inappropriate for him to engage

happened in libya, where our u.s. ambassador was killed. they said, susan rice said on this broadcast last sunday, after the president of libya said this was the work of terrorists, she said, no, this was because of a spontaneous demonstration that had to do with that film. now they have come around to saying, well, yes, it was a terrorist attack. is mitt romney making enough of this? i haven't heard too much from him on that. >> bob, what struck me-- and i have nope the director of national intelligence for years. he's a bright man. he's a competent man. this administration in effect is now saying, "oh, don't blame the united nations ambassador. don't blame the white house spokesman. don't blame the president, because our intelligence system failed so decisively." i don't know which worries me more, the idea that the intelligence system took weeks to figure out the obvious-- although we are told in fact they had information the day before the attack because the video that went out from al qaeda asking that the ambassador-- somebody be killed on 9/11 was a day earlier. so i don't know whet

. >> here's my question, then. because congressman peter king is calling on susan rice to step down, to resign as u.s. ambassador to the u.n. and yesterday, here's the response as they try and move forward and turn the majpage. congressman paul ryan and paul mccain. take a look at this approach. >> the response was slow. it was confused. it was inconsistent. they first said that it was a youtube video and a spontaneous mob. we now know that it was a planned terrorist attack. if this was one tragic incident, that would be a tragedy in and of itself. the problem is it's part of a bigger picture of the fact that the obama foreign policy is unraveling literally before our eyes on our tv screens. >> i think it interferes with the depiction that the administration is trying to convey, that al qaeda is on the wane, that everything's fine in the middle east. >> you think it's political? >> i think there are certain political overtones. how else could you trot out our u.n. ambassador to say it was spontaneous? >> maybe it was. >> five days later? that doesn't pass the smell test. it was ever

mind? >>reporter: if it was after the statement of susan rice there is no reason not to pinpoint that date. we have asked them to do so and we have yet to give them anything for the record. the second question is, why was it that the administration sent out execution an rice and not someone who you would describe as an intelligence officials that is the white house counter terrorism advisor, the national security advisor, the director of national intelligence himself, or even the c.i.a. director. >>shepard: thank you, catherine. the united states supreme court started the new term today and the justices are ready for very high profile cases. cases that could include something most people thought was settled: the health care law. [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. in what world do potatoes, bacon and cheese add up to 100 calories? your world. ♪ [ whispers ] real bacon... creamy cheese... 100 calories... [ chef ] ma'am [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. care law may notgal battle be settled after all. the supreme court started a new term today. the list of cas

of this in materi terms of the message and the back and forth of susan rice and the president. >> so it's hard right now to kind of move that around a little bit. i think that they could have had huge issues right after the attack, vis-a-vis security, vis-a-vis egypt if mitt romney hadn't gotten in the way. >> right. >> i think that was a big deal he got in the way because that distracted the conversation for at least ten days, him attacking the president. i think now, people have moved back to the economy a little bit. i don't know that people are foe cutting on this as much. >> richard, there's going to be on october 22nd the third debate focused on foreign policy and you can bet the republicans will use this against the president, perhaps we'll have more detailed. how much has he been weakened by the benghazi attack? >> not hugely, to be honest because he struck, as lois said a dignified tone, the president's response was what you expect from the head of state, from national leader. you know, this is a -- clearly an incredibly messy situation, events were messy, libya has no central government th

with this. what about this coverup? >> it is a coverup. >> susan rice goes out and basically lies to the american people on a number of news shows, we now know that the administration knew right away that this was a pre-planned al qaeda terrorist operation and they lied and now they're covering up the lie. >> within 24 hours they knew it was an al qaeda operation. >> so that's why they don't want obama loose on this foreign policy. >> obama never takes -- he never says i'm to blame. it's always george bush is to blame, somebody else is to blame. he's never to blame. he is to blame. it's on his watch. >> go ahead, mark. >> the one thing that i have to say in defense of the administration here, and i know the security situation in the north africa quite well because of my own experience. it was confusing in the beginning. but it's no excuse if going out there and trotting out some alibi that it was not a terrorist attack. so i agree with that. but the one thing i want to say is the president did give a remarkably well tailored speech at the jen as s general assembl. it did an roept

, representative peter king is calling for the resignation of u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice for what he says was misleading comments about the attacks in libya. yes, this issue has become political, but it is more than that because even if u.s. intelligence didn't know the specific details of an impending attack, here's what they and we do know. three days before the attack, senior u.s. embassy officials were warned by the libyan militia connected to the government, they couldn't secure benghazi. the british ambassador was attacked in june and of course, the attack happened on september 11th and once again, once the attack happened, u.s. intelligence knew within 24 hours that it was linked to al-qaeda. also, "the daily beast" eli lake reports they even knew the location of at least one of the attackers. eli is with me tonight on what u.s. intelligence knew in the immediate aftermath. also with us is jeff porter, an adviser on political and security risks and jeffrey cousins. great to see you. and eli, let me start with you. you have had so much of the first reporting on this and now, yo

that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. >> the u.n. ambassador susan rice. two sundays ago, took another three days before the administration began acknowledging what many experts say should have been obvious. >> let me begin by asking you whether you would say that ambassador stevens and the three other americans died as a result of a terrorist attack. >> certainly on that particular question, i would say yes. they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. >> two days later, secretary of state clinton made it even plainer. >> what happened in benghazi was a terrorist attack and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four americans. >> keeping them honest, if the white house wants credit for quickly labeling what happened in benghazi an act of terror, can't also claim credit for prudently not calling it terrorism for so many days. whatever you think, clearly these are two candidates with some big questions to face and perhaps, they will less than 48 hours from now. that debate, a

. they said, susan rice said on this broadcast last sunday, after the president of libya said this was the work of terrorists, she said, no, this was because of a spontaneous demonstration that had to do with that film. now they have come around to saying, well, yes, it was a terrorist attack. is mitt romney making enough of this? i haven't heard too much from him on that. >> bob, what struck me-- and i have nope the director of national intelligence for years. he's a bright man. he's a competent man. this administration in effect is now saying, "oh, don't blame the united nations ambassador. don't blame the white house spokesman. don't blame the president, because our intelligence system failed so decisively." i don't know which worries me more, the idea that the intelligence system took weeks to figure out the obvious-- although we are told in fact they had information the day before the attack because the video that went out from al qaeda asking that the ambassador-- somebody be killed on 9/11 was a day earlier. so i don't know whether i feel more comfortable knowing the ad

with a disclaimer or a caveat. i have no susan rice since i was 12 years old. she was a year ahead of me at the girls' junior or senior high school across the way, growing up in washington, and she has been a friend of mine for quite some time. my sense -- trying to be a little dispassionate. my sense is that she has been a very effective u.n. ambassador. no question that she -- and she will admit it and committed a publicly -- she feels a tremendous burden about the situation in rwanda. in 1994, she was 30 years old. i believe she was at the national security council at the time before becoming assistant secretary of state for african affairs. she, along with many in the clinton administration, now realizes were slow to call this situation what it was. and she believes if they had acted sooner they could have saved conceivably tens of thousands of lives. in terms of salawi -- he was not without his pluses. -- his blemishes. he was also an ally of the united states to pursue certain common interest, particularly the fight against terrorism. but i am not an expert on him so i will leave i

to the united nations susan rice and the others in the administration. it sounded lining it could not possibly be a terror attack and now we know it was. >> brian: senators are not giving up the details of the briefings. they have a problem with what they are hearing in public and know to be facts in private. here is a letter. we are disturbed by the public administration by members that it was a protest gone wrong rather than a terrorist attack. on the 11 year anniversary was september 11th. there is a series of events that led to attacks on 9/11 they had a well planned attack against the u.s. again . you don't admit they will not stop. >> steve: they want answers. >> gretchen: did the president start attending the intelemeetings because of benghazi or happened in libya or someone wrote an arcticle that he was not attending and suddenly he started to attend. >> brian: the day before the attacks on 9-leb e 10. the president marked the concern and sent warning out? >> steve: in fact the washington post fact checker took them to task and said he's wrong. the president might have attended less th

news alert, moments ago the state department can defended u.n. ambassador susan rice after new calls went out this weekend demanding her resignation. congressional critics are angry that ms. rice was talking to the media some four days after a terror attack killed four americans in libya and telling reporters across this nation that it was a spontaneous protest that was behind the attack when fox news and now other news outlets have reported that the white house knew within 24 hours that this was a terror attack and not some spontaneous event. the administration is maintaining that they gave us the information as it evolved and as it came to be known by them. there is, at a minimum, some question about that. the white house is also facing tough new questions about the president's decision to attend a campaign event in vegas within 24 hours of the attack. white house senior adviser david plouffe -- keep in mind, this is the first time they've put the senior advisers out there since all this happened -- but they were on the sunday shows this weekend, and mr. plouffe was challenged outr

with the video. and they knew within 24 hours. and they set susan rice out on all of the talk shows to lie to all of the american people. i feel this was done because president obama is up for reelection and he said al-qaida was contained or done away with. and it has become all political. so he can re-win the election. host: there's a story in the new york times this morning -- saying there was a link between these attacks. she was the highest ranking obama administration officials. -- ross, from texas. on our line for democrats. caller: what i wanted to say, i wanted to complement the show. i have been watching for years. a longtime fan. one thing i wish you and every moderator would do with the beginning of every interview is ask whoever you are interviewing to what they work for and where they get their pay from. and that way that would give the viewing public a better idea of what angle they are coming from. host: how does that information change from you are watching this segment? caller: it helps me to see what angle they are coming from. the people you have on your show are not unlike the

susan rice, the ambassador to the united nations -- >> right. jon: -- was out on the sunday shows four or five days after the attack -- >> saying that it budget. >> right. jon, frankly, i don't know enough about the sequence of events to comment on that. >> but, peter -- >> i think the fact that the administration probably was trying to be more careful than respond to the news cycle. that's my -- >> that's not true, peter. is it not true dealing with harry reid and the budget, is it not true dealing with the president and the jobs council? >> i think the republicans in the -- >> no, answer that. jon: we are -- >> i didn't want say it wasn't true. i just said the republicans and democrats have fought on the hill, and reid and mcconnell have both done things. jon: we are going to let the viewers decide for themselves. you guys argued it pretty well. peter, angela, thank you both. >> thank you. jenna: high stakes at the united nations today. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu set to make his case against a nuclear rapp. we're going to have a preview of what to expect and why this s

nations, susan rice, went on television and try to say the attacks in libya was inspired by an anti-muslim trailer on youtube. they determined in 24 hours that was a terrorist attack. yet they went out on the network news and made the claim that this was caused by something else. that is the problem is that we would simply say i don't expect the network news media to come out and say everything i would say as a conservative american. i would like them to ask questions. we have had a couple of reporters at jay carney asking questions. the problem we have to tell is that president obama has not given a press conference in months. mitt romney was attacked for holding a press conference and the president has not held a press conference since june. and for some reason, we have a press that does not have and the self-respect to demand a press conference. the president obama idea of tough questions is to go to " entertainment tonight" to go to the view. he has gone on "60 minutes." there is not a lot of difference between david letterman asked obama how much he weighs and steve cropp's que

to happen with that, with susan rice? do you think she could potentially lose her job or no? >> i don't think she'll lose her job, but i don't think we'll be seeing her much in the upcoming months. >> molly, best and worst? >> i'll give best week to todd akin, the republican senate candidate out in missouri. the deadline passed this week for him to withdraw from the race. he was under heavy, heavy pressure from so many republicans to get out. they say they couldn't possibly win. he stuck it out, he knew they'd come around and they'd give him their money and their support when they didn't have a choice, and sure enough, that's exactly what's happening. you have a lot of republicans magically changing their mind now that they can't get him out of there. and for worst week, i'll have to go with mitt romney. this is the week that we really saw this narrative solidify that he is just, he's down and out. and when i was with him in ohio, i was looking for signs that he's doing something to turn it around. that he knows what he wants to do to get out of it, and i'm just not seeing those signs

. that's now, norah. >> as you know libya -- what susan rice said on a number of shows over the weekend which you have criticized -- i read this morning. >> i was on after her. she said they had no evidence that it was not a spontaneous demonstration. how could you say that when mortars indirect, direct fire and heavy weapons are being used at this is as a result of a spontaneous demonstration? also incredible to blame it on a video. it's not the video. its the islamist using the video. >> do you believe that al qaeda is behind the attack. >> i think that this was an orchestrated attack. clearly the organization that was heavily involved is involved with extremist organizations. and so i can't say exactly but it's clear that there's a connection between these people and to say that it was a spontaneous demonstration is really beyond belief. it shows a fundamental pwarfare but of what's going on in that part of the world. >> you raise the issue how do you make these embassies more secure. we have to turn to politics. >> could i say its the obligation of the host country but our obligatio

Excerpts 0 to 84 of about 85 results.


(Some duplicates have been removed)


Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)